The Abrams Report' for Jan. 21
Read the complete transcript to Wednesday's showUpdated: 12:46 p.m. ET Jan. 22, 2004
...
ABRAMS: Now to the Michael Jackson case. A lot going on. Let‘s get you caught up on the Jackson headlines. That concert-like scene outside the Santa Maria courthouse apparently was a one-time-only performance by Jackson, so says the Santa Maria police chief. Chief Dan McCagney (ph) says Jackson put people in harm‘s way when he jumped on top of his SUV after his arraignment last week, and that they will be tougher on crowd control if Jackson plans an encore at future court dates.
And some British veterans are apparently offended by Jackson‘s arraignment attire. They say the crest on Jackson‘s blazer is a British military insignia from the Royal Army Service Corps, a British unit, which carried supplies to the frontlines of battle during both world wars. They say he didn‘t earn it, he shouldn‘t wear it. We‘ll see what happens to that.
Both sides of the case are asking the judge in the case to modify the gag order. Defense attorney Mark Geragos asking for permission to respond to press reports, which he believes are false, and district attorney Tom Sneddon says, yes, but with some provisions. He wants both parties to agree on a response, and it should be in writing. No TV cameras allowed.
Also today Jackson‘s defense team arguing that the November raid of a private investigator‘s office violated the attorney-client privilege. The November 18 raid of the Beverly Hills offices of Bradley Miller (ph) in connection with the search of Neverland turns out that he is working with Mark Geragos.
But, a lot of attention focused on Michael Jackson. What about the alleged victim? New reports today suggests that he is ill, struggling with medical problems, out of the spotlight, including having to have a kidney, spleen, an adrenal gland removed because of a large tumor. This according to William Dickerman, a lawyer who had represented the boy‘s family.
Now my sources tell me the boy is actually doing quite well, considering that he is still recovering from a bout with cancer. But the question remains, how important is his health to this case, and what about this business about the private investigators office? Let‘s check if with our panel. Joe, first, let‘s talk about the boy‘s health. How important is it to the case?
TACOPINA: Of ultimate importance, Dan, for the prosecution. There are ways the prosecution can proceed if God forbid, something were to happen to this boy where he were no longer available. They could, in theory, apply to the court for relief now and say we want to videotape his testimony, allow the defense to cross-examine him to secure his testimony in case he becomes unavailable at the time of trial, either through, again, God forbid, death or an ailment that just does not permit him to get on the witness stand.
That being said, although that may be in the form of admissible evidence and may get before a jury, it‘s not what is going to convince 12 jurors to convict Michael Jackson beyond a reasonable doubt. I mean they‘re going to have to look this boy in the eye and believe him. Without him as a witness at this trial then, in my opinion there‘s no way the prosecution sustains a conviction.
ABRAMS: Norm, how do you go about defending raiding the offices of an investigator for the defense? I mean is it an automatic rule that says, look, once it turns out if they can show that he was working as an investigator for the defense, his office is off limits?
EARLY: Well, certainly they must have had some information that there was something there that was pertinent to his case. How much they knew about the relationship between Mark Geragos and this individual is something that I‘m not sure of at this time. Certainly if there‘s any relationship whatsoever, the defense is going to raise it as a possibility of the prosecution and the police having done something improper, and for that reason, some evidence should be thrown out.
The other key is was anything found here? Was anything that‘s usable in a trial found as a result of this particular search warrant being issued? One of the things I did want to go back to was what Joe was saying about the videotape. Normally as a prosecutor you want to have that individual on the stand so that they can develop rapport with that jury so that the jury can feel their pain.
You might lose some of that in a video, but in this case with a very young child, there may be an advantage not having that individual actually in front of 12 people. I don‘t believe it to be the case in most circumstances, but depending upon this individual‘s state of health, state of mind, and their susceptibility to be afraid in situations with open courtroom, people all around, it may be a benefit in this case.
ABRAMS: And Natasha, it matters how he looks. I mean I hate to say that, but that‘s a reality that jurors are going to be looking at this boy trying to evaluate his credibility.
EARLY: Sure.
LAPINER-GERISI: Right.
ABRAMS: And how he appears in the courtroom is going to matter, isn‘t it?
LAPINER-GERISI: It is. I mean whenever you are cross-examining a child in a sex abuse case, it is the most difficult and delicate cross-examination, and here you have the added factor that he is sick and he may be dying. So if the jurors have to decide is what he is saying true, the whole case revolves around him.
Are they going to be able to do that while looking at a videotape? And it goes to your question, Dan. You said you are not sure if this leak is true or what you‘ve heard that the kid is in good health. I think if he was gravely ill, we would be seeing moving papers from the district attorney saying I think we might need a conditional examination.
ABRAMS: Yes. Finally, this issue of the gag order. You‘ve got Mark Geragos, on the one had, saying we want to respond to inaccurate reports, which basically says we should be able to say pretty much whatever we want, and on the other hand, you got the prosecutor saying we want to do this all together in writing. You know, Norm, I mean, Joe, I can‘t see the judge possibly agreeing to the prosecution‘s suggestion that, oh, the only thing we‘ll do is together, and it will only be in writing. And yet, on the other hand, I can‘t see him giving Geragos carte blanche to respond any time he thinks there‘s something inaccurate out there.
TACOPINA: Right Dan. Imagine that first hypothetical where they have
to agree together to respond to a leak. I mean can you imagine how
burdened this court will be with moving papers from either side saying the
other side is not being reasonable and Geragos‘ suggestion that we have to
· we should be able to respond the Safe Harbor provision. We should be able to respond to the false leaks. So that means any time there‘s a bad leak about Michael Jackson, they get to respond. This is why gag orders in this type of case in this day and age does not work.
ABRAMS: Yes.
TACOPINA: It doesn‘t prevent leaks, Dan. It drives them underground.
ABRAMS: I agree with you. All right, Natasha, Joe, Norm, thanks a lot. Appreciate it.
TACOPINA: All right, Dan.
EARLY: Hey thank you, Dan. Take care.
Source: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4028656/
Read the complete transcript to Wednesday's showUpdated: 12:46 p.m. ET Jan. 22, 2004
...
ABRAMS: Now to the Michael Jackson case. A lot going on. Let‘s get you caught up on the Jackson headlines. That concert-like scene outside the Santa Maria courthouse apparently was a one-time-only performance by Jackson, so says the Santa Maria police chief. Chief Dan McCagney (ph) says Jackson put people in harm‘s way when he jumped on top of his SUV after his arraignment last week, and that they will be tougher on crowd control if Jackson plans an encore at future court dates.
And some British veterans are apparently offended by Jackson‘s arraignment attire. They say the crest on Jackson‘s blazer is a British military insignia from the Royal Army Service Corps, a British unit, which carried supplies to the frontlines of battle during both world wars. They say he didn‘t earn it, he shouldn‘t wear it. We‘ll see what happens to that.
Both sides of the case are asking the judge in the case to modify the gag order. Defense attorney Mark Geragos asking for permission to respond to press reports, which he believes are false, and district attorney Tom Sneddon says, yes, but with some provisions. He wants both parties to agree on a response, and it should be in writing. No TV cameras allowed.
Also today Jackson‘s defense team arguing that the November raid of a private investigator‘s office violated the attorney-client privilege. The November 18 raid of the Beverly Hills offices of Bradley Miller (ph) in connection with the search of Neverland turns out that he is working with Mark Geragos.
But, a lot of attention focused on Michael Jackson. What about the alleged victim? New reports today suggests that he is ill, struggling with medical problems, out of the spotlight, including having to have a kidney, spleen, an adrenal gland removed because of a large tumor. This according to William Dickerman, a lawyer who had represented the boy‘s family.
Now my sources tell me the boy is actually doing quite well, considering that he is still recovering from a bout with cancer. But the question remains, how important is his health to this case, and what about this business about the private investigators office? Let‘s check if with our panel. Joe, first, let‘s talk about the boy‘s health. How important is it to the case?
TACOPINA: Of ultimate importance, Dan, for the prosecution. There are ways the prosecution can proceed if God forbid, something were to happen to this boy where he were no longer available. They could, in theory, apply to the court for relief now and say we want to videotape his testimony, allow the defense to cross-examine him to secure his testimony in case he becomes unavailable at the time of trial, either through, again, God forbid, death or an ailment that just does not permit him to get on the witness stand.
That being said, although that may be in the form of admissible evidence and may get before a jury, it‘s not what is going to convince 12 jurors to convict Michael Jackson beyond a reasonable doubt. I mean they‘re going to have to look this boy in the eye and believe him. Without him as a witness at this trial then, in my opinion there‘s no way the prosecution sustains a conviction.
ABRAMS: Norm, how do you go about defending raiding the offices of an investigator for the defense? I mean is it an automatic rule that says, look, once it turns out if they can show that he was working as an investigator for the defense, his office is off limits?
EARLY: Well, certainly they must have had some information that there was something there that was pertinent to his case. How much they knew about the relationship between Mark Geragos and this individual is something that I‘m not sure of at this time. Certainly if there‘s any relationship whatsoever, the defense is going to raise it as a possibility of the prosecution and the police having done something improper, and for that reason, some evidence should be thrown out.
The other key is was anything found here? Was anything that‘s usable in a trial found as a result of this particular search warrant being issued? One of the things I did want to go back to was what Joe was saying about the videotape. Normally as a prosecutor you want to have that individual on the stand so that they can develop rapport with that jury so that the jury can feel their pain.
You might lose some of that in a video, but in this case with a very young child, there may be an advantage not having that individual actually in front of 12 people. I don‘t believe it to be the case in most circumstances, but depending upon this individual‘s state of health, state of mind, and their susceptibility to be afraid in situations with open courtroom, people all around, it may be a benefit in this case.
ABRAMS: And Natasha, it matters how he looks. I mean I hate to say that, but that‘s a reality that jurors are going to be looking at this boy trying to evaluate his credibility.
EARLY: Sure.
LAPINER-GERISI: Right.
ABRAMS: And how he appears in the courtroom is going to matter, isn‘t it?
LAPINER-GERISI: It is. I mean whenever you are cross-examining a child in a sex abuse case, it is the most difficult and delicate cross-examination, and here you have the added factor that he is sick and he may be dying. So if the jurors have to decide is what he is saying true, the whole case revolves around him.
Are they going to be able to do that while looking at a videotape? And it goes to your question, Dan. You said you are not sure if this leak is true or what you‘ve heard that the kid is in good health. I think if he was gravely ill, we would be seeing moving papers from the district attorney saying I think we might need a conditional examination.
ABRAMS: Yes. Finally, this issue of the gag order. You‘ve got Mark Geragos, on the one had, saying we want to respond to inaccurate reports, which basically says we should be able to say pretty much whatever we want, and on the other hand, you got the prosecutor saying we want to do this all together in writing. You know, Norm, I mean, Joe, I can‘t see the judge possibly agreeing to the prosecution‘s suggestion that, oh, the only thing we‘ll do is together, and it will only be in writing. And yet, on the other hand, I can‘t see him giving Geragos carte blanche to respond any time he thinks there‘s something inaccurate out there.
TACOPINA: Right Dan. Imagine that first hypothetical where they have
to agree together to respond to a leak. I mean can you imagine how
burdened this court will be with moving papers from either side saying the
other side is not being reasonable and Geragos‘ suggestion that we have to
· we should be able to respond the Safe Harbor provision. We should be able to respond to the false leaks. So that means any time there‘s a bad leak about Michael Jackson, they get to respond. This is why gag orders in this type of case in this day and age does not work.
ABRAMS: Yes.
TACOPINA: It doesn‘t prevent leaks, Dan. It drives them underground.
ABRAMS: I agree with you. All right, Natasha, Joe, Norm, thanks a lot. Appreciate it.
TACOPINA: All right, Dan.
EARLY: Hey thank you, Dan. Take care.
Source: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4028656/